Should we adopt a Negative Income Tax?

So, as in that example there, if you earn £20k, you're essentially getting £10k taken off you? Is this not effectively introducing a 33% income tax for those earning £20k?

I quite like the idea of a citizen's income. Its simple and cheap to administer.

Politically there are too many special interest groups who would't like it for it to be workable but hey ho.

And people working 40hr weeks to get taxed 50% ending up £6k better off than someone who didn't bother working at all seems warped.

I thought this was a green party policy. Would most conservatives agree to this?

I like this idea, but mainly because it would mean I wouldn't have to work if I didn't want to and would get a basic standard of living.

In that example. They did say it was an example.

You could have it as:
Citizen income £12k
12-15k - taxed 10%
15-20k - taxed 20%
20-30k - taxed 30%
30-40k - taxed 40%
40k+ - taxed 45%

I think you guys have misunderstood this. I'll try and explain it for you.

Income from work: £0.
Cut-off: £20,000
Calculation for basic income: ((cut-off (£20,000) - income (£0)) x 50%) + income = £10,000
Final income: £10,000

Income from work: £10,000.
Cut-off: £20,000
Calculation for basic income: ((cut-off (£20,000) - income (£10,000)) x 50%) + income = £15,000
Final income: £15,000

Income from work: £15,000.
Cut-off: £20,000
Calculation for basic income: ((cut-off (£20,000) - income (£15,000)) x 50%) + income = £17,500
Final income: £17,500

I understand it perfectly. Do you not think it removes the incentive to be earning if as you earn it gets taken away? If you earn £20k, or around that, you're essentially getting £10k taken off you, as you would have been given had you not earned that amount. So you're essentially doing £20k worth of work for only £10k profit.

I understand it perfectly. Do you not think it removes the incentive to be earning if as you earn it gets taken away? If you earn £20k, or around that, you're essentially getting £10k taken off you, as you would have been given had you not earned that amount. So you're essentially doing £20k worth of work for only £10k profit.

That's a totally different thing to what it said in the article. In your example you're not getting your citizen's income taken away if you're earning, like it is in the link.

If you earn £20k you keep £20k. You don't lose anything. You just don't gain anything, as it should be. As to the incentive for work, the negative income tax has far fairer withdrawal rates than the existing systems. Some welfare systems instantly cut off when you hit a certain point. This tapers it out far slower.

You are doing £20k worth of work for £20k. This isn't a taxation system. If you earn £20k the negative income tax doesn't affect it AT ALL.

The figures used were purely representative of the mechanism - we can argue about the figures later. The article was just about the principle.

And they aren't being taxed. When you earn more, the amount you receive in basic income is reduced. Which seems entirely fair. It has a fairer withdrawal rate than the current system.

The outcome is the same though.

Its much easier to administer if the payment level is flat.

What are the arguments against just doing what loads of people say and taxing the **** out of big corporations (say only let the CEO have about £10 million at most out of the billion he makes a year), then giving everyone the basic income, for security, raising minimum wage to a decent level, and not taxing workers earning under about £100,000-200,000 a year (or maybe more)?

Either you're a troll or a massive idiot.

The company and/or boss would move elsewhere. Or you'd sink them.

You really think a CEO makes £1bn? :P Which UK companies do that?